Medical care for U.S. soldiers, veterans
Last week, some unpublicized but very big votes were held by the U.S. Congress. They concern medical funding for soldiers injured in Afghanistan and Iraq:
An amendment to House Resolution 1815 (the military spending bill) was defeated; it would have expanded the Tricare military health plan to cover the National Guard and reserves instead of the short-term, temporary coverage they now receive.
HR 2528 also was defeated. It would have increased spending by $53 million for medical care of troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq and allocated $8 million for trauma treatment and $9 million for prosthetic devices. The funds were to have come from base-closure savings.
These votes were roughly along party lines; Democrats were unable to get enough Republicans to cross over. These are the folks who represent the party of our president and vice president, who are so full of “we-support-our- troops” blather.
More than 1,800 dead soldiers were retroactively given a large increase in death benefits. That’s a good thing. But the 25,000 injured troops and 700-plus amputees are having a rough time of it. And our government is about to close Walter Reed Medical Center, where many of the amputees and brain-injured patients are treated.
Many families of returning soldiers are experiencing economic crises and some have had to resort to food stamps, etc. This is occurring while the total price tag for the “War on Terror” has reached $211 billion.
Whether or not a person agreed with this war, the veterans surely deserve the finest medical care upon their returns home, and economic justice to help put their lives and their families lives back together.
Wendy Davis, Mancos
Moving the office of CU’s president
Re: “Study: CU could save $800,000 by moving president’s offices,” June 2 Denver & The West story.
The last few years have been difficult ones for the University of Colorado, to say the least.
State funding of the university system has been cut by $79 million over the last four years. Faculty positions and educational programs have suffered greatly. Tuition has had to increase while scholarship availabilities have shrunk. Ongoing issues with the football program, alcohol abuse, allegations of racial insensitivity and Ward Churchill have all been fodder for the media to focus on what’s wrong with the Boulder campus.
During this time of great turmoil, the university is operating without permanent players in numerous key positions: chief financial officer, treasurer, chancellor of the Boulder campus; chancellor of health sciences and, of course, the president.
Although we are quite pleased with the interim appointment of Hank Brown and have great faith in his ability to lead, we were very disappointed to learn, through the media, that the Board of Regents is considering moving the office of the president at this time of great flux.
For more than 100 years, the president has served the university system faithfully from the flagship Boulder campus. The role of a university president is that of leading an academic institution. With few exceptions, no other major university has isolated its president from his or her students and faculty; indeed, there is no compelling reason to do so. When this issue was raised under the leadership of former President John Buechner, it had a potential price tag of between $600,000 and $1 million. Even during those more stable times, Buechner vigorously opposed the move.
We all know that the future of funding for higher education lies with the fate of Referendum C. Until the voters make their decision, no unnecessary expenses should be incurred. To do so without an immediate compelling need is fiscally irresponsible. Moreover, this proposed move comes at a time when the flagship campus needs more direct support and attention from the president, not less.
There are numerous other concerns as well.
As legislators, we have gone to the mat for the university time and time again, but we want to make it very clear that we do not support a move at this time – nor will we do so unless and until a compelling need is proven.
Alice Madden, House majority leader, Boulder
Rep. Tom Plant, vice chair, Joint Budget Committee, Boulder
Notifying surface owners of BLM lease sales
Re: “BLM can’t notify everyone of property rights,” June 7 letter to the editor.
Douglas Koza of the Bureau of Land Management stated in his letter that the BLM just doesn’t have the staff to determine the surface owners of property being included in lease sales. I believe there is a simple solution to this problem.
In our concern for quality of life in Delta County, the Western Slope Environmental Resource Council has been tracking BLM lease sales for several years. As a part of this process, volunteers identify and notify the surface owners of proposed lease parcels. We believe, as The Post does, that surface owners should know when the mineral rights under their property are being leased.
We learn the owners’ names and addresses by making a visit or placing a call to the assessor’s office in the courthouse. Although this is a simple process, it duplicates some of what energy companies’ landmen already do. Landmen nominate about 99 percent of all properties included in BLM lease sales. They do much of their work at county courthouses. An easy solution for the BLM is to require the name and mailing address of the current surface owner with every nomination made.
This process would not require more BLM staff. More importantly, it is the decent thing to do.
Peggy Baxter, Cedaredge
A basic question
I teach people how to drive. The other day, I perfunctorily asked a 15-year-old girl how school went this year. She said “OK” with great conviction.
I asked what had been her favorite subject. She replied, “Social studies, because the teacher was really fun.”
I asked what she learned, and she responded, “We learned about Iraq,” and continued, “It’s a funny thing; they didn’t tell us why we’re there.”
I do not believe this is good.
David Ferlic, Wheat Ridge
Assault on CU student
Re: “Victim’s faith also wounded,” Page 1 story, June 8.
By any measure, Andrew Sterling could have been my son: a young man who happens to be black, walking a female friend home after enjoying a nice evening of fun, laughs and good friendship.
One might dismiss the hate-based attack he recently suffered as an aberration. A fluke. Another might point to it as affirmation that the University of Colorado and Boulder do indeed have some ethnic and racial issues that beg to be addressed.
Maybe CU can spend a little quality time trying to find out why such a supposed bastion of liberalism seems to have such tangible racial problems.
Ron Baker, Denver
